 Okay. Excellent. Well, welcome, everyone, and thank you for being here. It's cold outside, but it is really hot in here. It is, actually. I have to tell you, this is one of my favorite weeks of the year, because it's one of the few times, and I hopefully you all appreciate that we get a chance to step away from the day to day and really think about the big questions and issues that define our time, define our economy and, frankly, our culture and our humanity. And a few years ago, a really big shift took place, and we have defined this in different terms. We use the term the Fourth Industrial Revolution, but it seemed like all of a sudden the future was no longer governed or imagined by executives and suits, but frankly driven by kids in hoodies and grown men who wear skinny jeans. So this turned out that, and frankly, it turned many industries upside down, and it put the incumbent players on their heels and on the defensive. And for some of the biggest companies in the world, including one or two on the stage here, there's a real question of survival in this new world order. But then a thing happened. The old guard companies, they had visionary executives who identified that their companies had vast troves of data and great, and use them as a great and untapped resource to reinvent themselves, and the age of technology then became the age of data. And now, while those Silicon Valley startups look to disrupt every industry still, they are realizing that they need the data. And more importantly, they need the trusted relationships with their customers that the incumbents already have. As a result, we're in an age where every company, no matter the sector or the customers it serves, has the ability to be a tech company, and every new technology depends on data. And those companies are finding they must work together, develop new innovations, and garner new insights from the most robust and diverse data sets available, and live in ecosystems that are defined by diverse participants. For all of the key issues related to technology in the fourth industrial revolution, including AI, machine learning, IoT, to name a few, and the complex issues related to skills training, education, job creation, medical research transportation, data is the heart of the matter, and trust is what makes that heart beat. And one of the fun things about data is it's extremely easy to point out some truly job-dropping facts, so bear with me a second. According to IEDC, there will be 44 zetabytes of data in existence, 10 times the number that was in existence in 2013. And I, frankly, am shuddering about how much of that is really selfies. In 2013, 22% of the data gathered was tagged in Analyze, which means that three quarters of the data sat on servers really serving no productive purpose. And in the next two years, the expectation is that the percentage of that data that's analyzed and used will double. Humory with one more fact. Last year, AI was estimated to be about an $8 billion industry. And three years from now, it's expected to be almost a $50 billion industry. And if you do the math, that's about a 55% compound annual growth rate. That's actually better than most cryptocurrencies, not as good as some great private equity firms. But while these facts seem a little bit trivial in some respects, they represent some very important and profound macro trends. Data isn't just critical, it's also highly controversial. Concerns about data privacy and security, debates about ownership, monetization of data, and agreements to how the flow of data across borders, geographical borders, are essential to address and resolve. And these issues all require us to come together and understand how the risks and opportunities intersect and align. And I would collaboratively work towards a future that benefits us all, and heals the fractures that threaten the progress on our planet. This panel on data responsibility in a fractured world is an essential part of this broad conversation, and about finding solutions to our biggest challenges. Because there's no more important currency or connective tissue underpinning the global economy today than data and trust. And by navigating these complex conversations and how to responsibly and ethically access, share, and utilize data in a way that benefits all members of society, we can build a framework that establishes guidelines and guardrails for a broader discussion about the global economy and the future of work. And this is a job of our extraordinary panelists. One of the things I love most about this panel this year, we're talking about innovation. We're talking about data. We're talking about the economy of the future. And our panel all leave established organizations. But don't let the lack of skinny jeans fool you. Each of our panelists is on stage to use data and technology in truly innovative and disruptive ways. So to my left, a true visionary, our first panelist, Jenny Rometti, Chairman, President, and CEO of IBM. A company that's been leveraging data and technology for the benefit of its customers for over 100 years. Hardly a new kid on the block in terms of a company. And that you aren't gonna find a company that isn't doing more with cutting edge data and technology and AI and machine learning than IBM. Jenny is enabling the rise of the incumbent. Our next panelist, Mario Greco, is a CEO of Zurich Insurance Company. While insurance is always dependent upon data. And to evaluate risk and develop products, Mario is leading a revolution to charge and transform how insurance companies deliver services. Technology-enabled services, data-enabled services, to a broad group of customers. And those services aren't defined just by insurance. So Neil Barty-Mattall is the founder and chairman of Barty Enterprises. I'm sorry, you're on that, I got you in the wrong order. A conglomerate with interest in telecommunications, insurance, real estate, hospitality, agribusinesses and food. And he's also one of the preeminent world philanthropists. And today, hopefully he'll tell us a little bit about one of the initiatives that he has pulled together with the WEF, with ICC and GSMA to talk about data in a responsible world. So hopefully you'll share some of those thoughts. And finally, Steve Corwin, who's a president and CEO of New York Presbyterian Hospital. Steve has used data artificial intelligence and cross-organization collaboration to augment work for the valued medical professionals with the most important data that we all care about, and that's our health. So welcome to my panelists, and I really wanna start with Jenny. And Jenny, we talked a little bit about the age of data and how it creates advantages to incumbent companies. You have been the enabler of that, the rise of the incumbent. Sounds like a Star Wars movie, but I'll tell you, I think that's gonna reshape the economy over the next ten years. So give us some of your thoughts on what you're seeing in the market and how you're engaging. First of all, I have to clarify, I have actually seen Sunil in Skinny Jeans. So we have a contemporary panel, I wanna be clear about this, okay? So I'm gonna come back to this phrasing of the incumbenate disruptor that we've really kind of coined with a whole set of clients. But I wanna frame one more thing about data. Cuz for the years I've been coming now to WEF, and I went back and looked at my annual report, my letter about five, six years ago actually. And in the letter it said, it starts with data is the new natural resource of our time. And the theory of using that phrasing of natural resource is that a natural resource, you can have it, but unless you do something with it, you don't get any value out of it. There are very poor countries that have lots of resources, right? But somebody else refines them and gets them. So it was that this would be the competitive advantage of our time, we believed. And I think this is coming true, two sides. It would be the opportunity of our time. I was just telling Steve, with some of our artificial intelligence, we're up to over 100,000 patients being treated. We worked on Watson for oncology. On the other side, so we will solve such great, great issues of our time. I do think at the same time there is a challenge, which I think we're gonna come back to later in the panel. Because it will be a challenge around debating about how many jobs are displaced. That will, of course, happen. It's happened with every revolution of technology, but 100% of jobs will change. And I think we need to talk about what that is. But data, it'll be there, it'll change the way any company makes a decision, a product or service, it's operation. And another, you had a great stat, I have one. There's an opportunity that's equal to two trillion to make better decisions in the world. And that sort of statistically a third of our decisions are great, a third are okay, and a third are not so good, no matter who we are. Okay, so that is a backdrop. So that to the word of data, it's what we've reinvented around. If you really believe that, I wanna come to, I think, a new point in time, the word disruptor, incumbent disruptor. Not that there are not great new companies, let's put that one to one side. So when you think about it now, companies have had lots of data. And actually, if you look at it, what is searchable out in the world, it's 20% of the world's data. You talked about how much, 80% is not searchable. 80% belongs to existing firms. And they haven't done much with it, cuz it's been hard to do something with it. But now you can. And so we had had a meeting of 100 CEOs from around the world. And we ended up coining this word, the incumbent disruptor. Cuz you could see something else happening now. And I know all of these guys. And they're all on that same path. And it would be something like this that I'll tell you about. So on one hand, anybody who already a company allows you to start up a new bank, Orange Bank, Next Bank, I can name them all. They've all gone up using what they knew about clients and AI, started up a Greenfield Bank. Or I think the more important thing I'm watching people do is say, you know what, given all that data, I can actually reimagine who I am. So if I'm a car company, maybe when I'm really a special, I'm not a car rental company, I'm actually a fleet manager. And you know what, in a world of autonomous cars, who knows fleet management better than me? And so this idea to reinvent, or I was with Merisk yesterday, the shipping group, they're like, with that AI and blockchain, I could actually completely revolutionize a trade lane. And so I think you're gonna see, I know Sunil's doing it with Barty. You are gonna see now, the tools are there to do it, this rise of the incumbent, and they have, I sort of lend this, my point was, I said to them, it just may turn out it may be better to have had a past than not. And so your ability now to use all that, and you've actually got more ammunition now to fight and come back. So that's the thought. The knowledge of your customers, the knowledge of who you are in your workplace, who you are in your industry, has now informed. What risk informs you? I mean, not that you don't use it already, it's the degree to which you can use it now into the future. Right, Mara, talk about a couple of examples. We've talked about how you are using data to reinvent the services delivery in your company. Yeah, I got to give an explanation on what insurance has been and what insurance is becoming. Insurance has been about pulling everything. So insurance of the past was, we take this room and we all pay an average of all address, right? So you subsidize each other. Now, in reality, just few people are risky. The majority of the people are not. And so it's a subsidy of many to few. This was insurance of the past. With the data, what we can now do is personalize the services and personalize the pricing. So the use of data allows us to understand precisely what is the riskiness of each individual, of each company, of each specific person and tailor the services in them. Now, few examples on how we use the data and what kind of data are necessary for us. And I'm just building on real cases. So take homeowners risks. What we found out is that in many cases, the fire or the damages to houses was also worsened by the fact that the sprinklers in the houses did not work. Now, I don't know if you know it, the sprinklers have a life. They have batteries and the batteries run off steam after a while, right? So last year, we started introducing in the houses insured with us sprinklers which are connected with us and tell us exactly if they're working or not. If we see that the sprinkler is fading away, we ask the person to get into the house and replace it. This is an example of the necessary data that makes the cost and the service of insurance lower and better. And as I would say, no risk at all for anyone. Travel and services. We've been investing heavily in traveling services. That's not insurance. We're not paying claims. We're just giving services to all the people traveling around the world. These are services like people traveling and losing tickets or having cancellation tickets or losing restaurants reservation. And we intervene, we step in, and we're having the world resolve the issues to the point that in extreme cases, we can provide medical support. We can provide assistance. We do this with data because we can track the people. It's connectivity of people before it was connectivity of homes and now it's connectivity of each of you through apps, through your mobile devices. And of course, the other important issue is connectivity of cars, which allows us to give services and to anticipate things. Because we know the road conditions. We know the weather. We know what's going to happen next. And we can provide services. Great. Mario, let's go to you, Steven. And Mario, I want to come back a little bit later and talk a little bit about how your customers feel about you having all that information about where they're going, when they're at home, when they're not at home, and how you protect the privacy in the context of a legal framework and franking the context of a trusted partner as an insurance provider, as a service provider. Steve, you have established an AI Command Center at New York Presbyterian. It is world class. It is ahead of the game. Talk a little bit about how you took the infrastructure of New York Presbyterian Hospital and enabled it to move into the next generation of a service delivery for Medicare. Sure. Well, we've been in business since 1771. So the importance for my board is to make sure we get to at least 2021. So I like what Jenny said about the rise of the incumbent. I think you have to recognize that unless you disrupt yourself, you're going to get disrupted. So that's the first thing that you do. AI machine learning is extremely important in a data-intensive environment. So let me just give you one example of what we monitor. Take a patient who comes in with pneumonia. How long do they have to stay in the hospital? Are they old? Are they young? Do they smoke? Do they not? Do they have other comorbidities? You could spend days figuring out the algorithms around how each one of these patients is going to stay in the hospital, how long they're going to stay in the hospital. Imagine if you had all of that data and you had an AI tool with machine learning that can say, this patient needs a physical therapy consult today, otherwise they're not getting out of the hospital in two days. The power of this in terms of nudging decision making and changing the way that people look at it is really profound. So even for simple operational things like how long does somebody need to stay in the hospital? It's enormously productive. Now take something more complicated. Imagine vascular imaging and imagining using AI and machine learning to look at heart measurements and realize that 80 to 85% of that can be done with an AI machine learning tool that frees up the radiologists or the cardiologists to make a different decision. Now what Ginny and I had spoken about earlier was once you start to change that paradigm, you either go all the way or you fail. And by all the way, it means all of these jobs may be present and we can debate that, but they're all going to change. And the nature of those jobs changes. But we think that in the absence of doing AI and machine learning as a service organization, as a health care organization, we will fail. Great, and still, let's talk about Barty Enterprises for a minute. You're across a number of industries. When you think about how AI, ML, have now affected every one of your businesses, which ones are you most optimistic about in terms of how your teams are embracing them to make sure they remain relevant in leadership positions? And which ones do you have a little more fear around in terms of your executive management moving forward? Look, my main business is telecommunications. And for long years, that's been the repository of data of customers when they spoke, when they called, when they messaged, when they did a data session. And as more and more countries and low-end countries are joining the mainstream of being on broadband networks with price of service coming down and smartphones being in everybody's hands, we are coming to a point where nearly 6 billion broadband customers is a reality now. What does that do? It is now a very different new world that we are looking at. There is a ton of data flowing almost all the time. There is one entity in this chain, which is a telecom company, which has been trusted for decades. The data has been with us. Nobody's ever had a problem. But now we have open APIs. I mean, people get to see more than what they should normally see. The fact is they can triangulate a lot of data and get to information of customers, which some of the customers may not necessarily be happy or comfortable with being outside in the domain. We have had this debates going on in the government bodies outside e-commerce sessions in WTO. That today, and today's discussion is really data in a fractured world, it has become increasingly more important for telecom companies to play that role of ensuring that the data is safe, data is well utilized. Our prime minister spoke the day before yesterday and said data is the new wealth. And if there is a new wealth, there's got to be rules and orders around maintaining that new wealth in a fashion and way where customers are fully protected, yet the innovation and the societal benefits are not lost. In this particular case, our role is rather limited. We can always give you a better pack, depending on your usage pattern. If you're a rumor, non-romer, what time of the day you use it, give night plans, try to get out of ignorance that is in the society of knowing what responsible data means. And we do that in a remarkable way. But do keep in mind, data really sits outside us now. It's in the hands of big technology companies, Genie's company processes that for many companies, big data is a big deal now. People make their living and businesses out of that. Companies like Zurich, Korea, and all are reshaping their businesses on the back of data. So the role of that gatekeeper that we had for two or three decades is gone now. Right, right. Let's talk about trust, because it's important. Every one of you manages companies that have, frankly, established reputations on being the most trusted in your industries. You know, what do you have to do to maintain that leadership? And what are the things, and I'd love to hear specific examples that you have done that articulate to your customers that you should continue to be the trusted purveyor or keeper of their data and user data. So Genie, let's talk a little bit about the auto industry, because I think that example's in industry. And then, Sneal, I want to talk a little bit about as a trusted advisor where data has flown through these pipes for so many years, how do you maintain that level of trust with your customers? Well, auto industry, let me come back to an example of that. But I think if someone said to me, what's the one thing that gives you license to operate, it would be the word trust. And now, but what I have seen over decades is whenever there's a truly new era of technology, I think it's incumbent on people like us, you got to guide it safely into the world. And these technologies are changing enough, they need guiding into this world, or we're not gonna like where we end up. And so I would suggest if I can, we put together a set of principles. In fact, I would call it responsible stewardship. And I would offer it for people to voluntarily go with this responsible stewardship. Some of us make it, some of us use it, all of these technologies. And they go in a, there's three big ones. One would be, and we'll maybe get time to talk about it later, we are gonna have to prepare the world's workforce. And that means not just the youth, that means retraining, and that means lifelong learning in government. So I'm gonna come back to that. You have to prepare the world for these technologies. And it's not just AI. There's a whole stream coming of these, whether it's quantum, there's much more to come. So second thing is, and I think this is almost as important for what Mario said, Sunil said, Steve said, first principle is, you must usher them in with purpose and transparency. I think more than ever. That would mean, and these guys I know, and there's a lot of their offers, they do. We were talking about this. What does it purpose mean? Hey, these technology is to help you. This is to make you a better human. It is man and machine. So I hated the word AI. It was like augmented intelligence would have been better. And then transparency says, hey, when Steve used his example, this AI has been trained using this kind of data, our best doctors from our institution and these other institutions trained it, so you know. I always use this example. I say, when you ask your favorite search engine, what's your favorite song, you actually don't care who voted on it, of 1970. You don't care who voted. I do care who voted on an A-artist, on my blockage and my artery here, how it was trained. So this purpose transparency, and then I would prepare the workers, usher it in with purpose and transparency, and Sunil was just on this point about, you gotta live by a set of data principles and you gotta be clear. And they would be around ownership. You own your data or you company, your customers own their data. We believe our customers own their data. So Sunil said, I process it all. It is theirs. So first one, next thing is, you've got to believe in that you can have the privacy of data and how you will treat it. And you gotta tell people how you do it. If I'm a country, I think you should have free flow of data in that I should decide where that data lives and be in control of it. You've got to have security and you have to assure there's no government access to the data. I think we're the only tech that can say we never gave government, never put a back door in. Do process a law, we would all adhere to do process of law, but other than that, and so those principles of ownership, of free flow of data, of privacy, of access, of security, those would be things that people voluntarily versus be regulated, but you gotta live them in what it is you do. Let's talk about the stewardship, that responsibility, should it be, government should it be, institutions as we've talked about, talk a little bit about what you all have formed with the WAF, et cetera, in that stewardship and should we adhere to GDPR principles as a starting point? I really wanna talk about who is responsible for leading the responsibility movements here. Yeah, I think that debate is ensuing at the moment. The fact is governments are getting uncomfortable, that a large amount of data of the citizens is now resting in machines or machines that people have control over. Cross-border flow of data is becoming a huge issue. Country after country started to debate, do we need to bring back the servers that are housed somewhere in data centers around the globe? That debate has started. So noise level is really rising and we as an industry, that's where we play, we need to play a very, very important role in framing the discussion because otherwise we lose control and we will see very rigid rules coming through and the fact is technology is moving so fast that the government will always be doing a catch up. So we took upon ourselves in GSMA. I am currently the chairman of GSMA, which is the largest global body of telecom operators and digital companies where all the O2T players are on the table and we decided that we should create something called a digital declaration and the title of that is a digital future that we support and strive for and then we have laid out certain principles. We decided we must have a larger participation from other industry bodies. I brought an ICC, International Chamber of Commerce which I cheer to, and the World Economic Forum Telecom Governors. All these three international bodies have come together to create a draft digital declaration which we approved yesterday. And when will that be available? When can we take a look at it? When can we... So actually John is right here. John, who's the regulatory head of GSMA. I think we start to now send it to all the leading companies of the world and get their comments in. We didn't want to go into a very long debate in wordsmithing of it. It's always very difficult. But I think what we have is very good. It talks about responsibilities. It talks about digital conduct and more importantly, data privacy and security. And that dynamic is a global perspective, not a regional perspective. It's absolutely global. It's absolutely global. To my mind, if we can all agree to a digital declaration, it will be like an anti-corruption pledge. So there will be companies who will sign into this and those who will not, we really have to explain why they are not signing onto this because these are broad, big principles that we are putting through. Did any government or any governmental bodies contribute to that declaration? Through GSMA, ICC, we have a lot of government participation. So we have some viewing by the government. But I think governments will be very glad to support something like this because if we can all take a pledge to live by these principles, I think we'll have a much better control over the narrative of the rules and regulations that will follow. Right, Mario, you're in the midst of, in a couple of months, you have to really deal with the, I'll call it the harsh realities of GDPR. Talk a little bit about it as a standard. What you were doing as a leader of a company who's not only subjected to it, but thinking about that as just a baseline. Talk a little bit about where you think those standards should go and responsibility. Yes, so GDPR is a European sponsored regulation on data protection in Europe. It's quite restrictive and as everything that happens out of Brussels, out of the European Parliament, it prescribes precisely in the very detailed way how to treat the data. Of course, complying is not an issue. Complying to this is the bare minimum and it is what we will do, but the trust issue, it goes well beyond GDPR. So we will be ready for the GDPR, but we need to build the trust well and above the GDPR regulations. Also, let me pause for a second because the trust issue in insurance is much bigger than the data issue. Insurance, and I don't wanna make a poll here because I know the results, insurance is not trusted per se irrespective of data. So we need to rebuild the trust of the customers on us and then on top of it, we need to build it on the data issues. And this is what Zurich, we've been doing since a year and a half. We have been pretty much following Virginia's described. I mean, we've been working on our principles. We've been working on our values. Then we are communicating principle and value. So who we are to our customers and we want to differentiate ourselves on this. We want to be the company perceived to be caring for the customers and acting on behalf of their customers. And we think that this is the way in which we can rebuild trust. So we welcome the government interventions on this. So we think they're inevitable, honestly. We don't especially like them, but again, they're inevitable. But there is much more to do for companies like us if we want to build the necessary trust and complying with the regulations. Steve, there is no more, your industry is the one that we rely on in terms of trust about our healthcare. How do we ensure that you aren't selling our information or being frankly biased by someone who's contributing to your organization in the way that we get treated? Talk about the values and how you think about driving that forward in New York Presbyterian. Well, there's no more profound obligation than protecting somebody's privacy. But we've now gone from protecting somebody's privacy in a world where it was written down or spoken to its being entirely digital. And that's a whole different ball of wax. About a decade ago, people were much more interested in free flow of data so that somebody could get cared for. If you were in Syracuse and you had a doctor in New York, how do we get the data? It was backwards. It's got to start with trust that every institutional actor can protect the information. And in this world, medical information combined with patient financial information is very valuable. So cyber issues loom large in healthcare. And healthcare has been a much softer target than banks in particular. We used to think of healthcare metaphorically as, okay, build a firewall. So you're building a wall. Now it's you got to build a wall. You got to build a moat. You've got to build a lake. And you've got to have segmented data to avoid some of the exfiltration of data that can happen. We're subject to phishing attacks and ransomware attacks on a daily basis. I meet with my chief information security officer, my chief legal counsel, my chief operating officer every two weeks to go over a threat analysis as to what do we see in the environment? And there are internal threats and external threats. We have about six million patient records that we're responsible for. So we've gone from a tower of $5 million worth of cybersecurity insurance five or six years ago to $125 million worth of cyber insurance now. Cyber looms incredibly large in my mind in terms of this issue of trust. And unless institutionally we work together, there's gonna be a problem. Perfect example, medical devices, the internet of things. Medical devices can be a portal of entry for a cyber attack. So unless we have agreement with the device manufacturers that we can digitally fingerprint their devices to know whether they're acting normally or abnormally within the cyber context, we don't know whether that device has been infiltrated and we've had that happen to us. So this issue of a fractured world, we better come together because in terms of information like that, there are a lot of people who want that information and can get that information via various means. Could I just add? Yes, please. Just a point on, because Steve is right on and this is one of the things that could either, if we don't take care of it, it will set back the use of data tremendously. Particularly when you think of all the medical devices, you're just a node on a network then, that you're a little, you're a pacemaker, and as well, your car, your car is a node on a network and the real threat on cyber is going to be AI and people attacking that data. So in other words, I think a great example, one of our folks use, it's visual, is an autonomous car that instead of what you could do to it is, you'd actually, with AI, tamper with the data so that stop sign now looks like a yield sign and you don't even know what's happened. And so that is gonna destroy people's trust in these things if we don't, both from the protection of all the principles, but the part about security. If it's not underpinned with this kind of security that you really treated as an, it is gonna be an AI issue. Security will be an AI issue. People will fight with AI against AI. The vulnerabilities have just expanded exponentially. Obviously governmental entities can't keep up with them at this point, so it really falls to the responsibility of the executives. How do you think about engaging with your customers to help them think about this? Because you're bringing to them the issues that they may not have thought about. What is the engagement model and how do we get, do we get industry standards, do we have geographic standards, do we have country standards, we have world standards? How do we get there? What's our pathway? Well, there's a broad, I mean, there's a general of the specific because on the areas of security, that is one that no one can handle alone. That is a absolutely public-private partnership. So it's really an ecosystem, isn't it? Oh, it's more than ecosystem. I actually like the analogy of healthcare for security in that, first off, in your own company or your own person, for your own security, you've got to assume bad stuff's gonna get in and like your immune system, you've gotta build things that you can't just put a wall around it that's necessary and not sufficient. You're gonna use AI for security in your own company to always be looking for things that are kind of out of place. Like your immune system acts. If you got a bad germ, you can explain better, exactly. But it, you know, it goes protects that part or whatever you're doing well. Right? I'm doing well, okay. So that's one piece. But the analogy I like with healthcare is what you also need is there is a WHO, World Health Organization, there's a CDC. What do they do? Collaborate and they wanna stop an outbreak from going further. So that is just sharing between both government and industry. I think there's lots of parallels to what you have to do in both cybersecurity as well as on data. So that's kind of an analogy view. But the second part is, I think if you try to regulate this, and I agree with Mario, some regulation's inevitable, right? But this is moving too fast. You won't really be able to regulate. So the reality is it's got to be principles. I like how Sunil framed it, that this would be a, hey, why didn't you sign this, right? And actually I'm seeing that behavior happen already on a number of different issues I've witnessed where we've gone and different governments have asked us to work on things. Things that make great common sense to me where we've been asked and they said, hey, if you knowingly were hosting child pornography as an example or child trafficking, would you, you know, if you knowingly did it, would it be okay if you were held responsible? I said, if I was knowingly doing it, sure, why wouldn't I sign that? Some people don't wanna sign that. That is, I think, the behavior that's gonna shame into or promote people too. So I think it is a set of principles. As Mario said, you have to make them alive through your products. You have to tell your clients. You have to keep showing them how you do it, whether a consumer or a business. And I think these broad manifestos or, you know, declarations is a better word, is how you would do it. Are you seeing any organizational capacity beyond the telecom industry? Are you all seeing it in different industries? You say, oh, beyond tech. I mean, tech still is the most trusted industry, believe it or not, it's interesting in that context. It's a slow race, right? Right, exactly. So part of it is, you know, are we seeing those sort of organizational capacity being built? I don't see it by industry. I see it happening by company. But I'll defer to my friends here. I think companies have to do it. Yeah, what are you saying, Mario? Yeah, I would agree or let me put it this way, that's my hope, because if I have to trust my industry, I will be long waiting. So I hope to trust ourselves in a company's solution. So leadership by companies will drag the industry? Yes. Okay, okay. What's the deal? You know, people trust their data to be with machines. That's the good news. Right. Nobody has a problem if a machine knows it all. Right. The problem starts when it goes beyond the machine into human hands. And that's where people are very uncomfortable. And with the force of technology, and I think Ginny can probably talk a lot more about that, if we can ensure that we can leave the information within the machines to be handled and make them hack-proof, make them so tight that the bad people, the people who will go and attack the cyber world are kept at bay. I think that'll be the most beautiful outcome of this debate that we have, because data will be shared. I mean, you cannot hide now. I mean, that period is gone. Whatever you may do. And let me tell you, most of the people don't worry about the data, as long as it's in trusted hands. You know, it's funny, thanks Ginny. Only 4% of the world's data is encrypted. Only 4%. I rest his case. Yeah. Can I flip this on its head? Can I have my own data and let me be the controller of my identity? And then, Steve, when I come to your hospital, I will opt in to participating in how this data can be used in some treatment. Why not that? Why not have identity solutions? I think that is ultimately the way it should go. I think that your data is your data. I may have a piece of that. It's not work-to-date. Some of the efforts to create health faults, et cetera, have not really been successful. But I... Is that a function of effort or is it a function of policy? I think it's a function of effort. Okay. Do you really want to be responsible for continuously curating your data? But I think philosophically, you're right. To your earlier point, though, I think that let's take the wanna cry attack. Part of the problem with that is if you've got 3,000 servers or 4,000 servers, you've got to make sure that every server is patched. And sometimes you got to make sure internally, to Jenny's point, that you're watching to make sure that your controls to make sure that every server is patched actually happens. So the trust factor has to be company by company. It's not going to be industry. We can say, yes, every server's got to be patched. But unless you can assure your customers that that's what you're doing, you're done. Well, despite all of our rhetoric about security, the facts are 50% are caused by hygiene. So we can all talk about Russia and the nation states and everything else. But, and that's very serious. I mean, I had mentioned to you, we handle 40 billion attacks a day. And so 40 billion in for our clients. And so, but at the end of the day, half is because of what you were just... Yeah, more high. It's basics of hygiene. Exactly. And that'll be true in a consumer world and in enterprise world, right? Absolutely. I know you think, how did we get onto security on this topic? But it is like, I always talk about this. I always say underpinned by security because if that goes astray... You can't do anything. Then no one's gonna trust anything, right? It is soon, people are gonna say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm gonna pull way back. You know, you have a point. You mentioned that my data is my data. Bad news is it's no more yours. Because your data is flying all over the globe. So I mean, banish that thought that it's yours. Now the other point you're making is I must have the choice and the right to move my data from one provider to another for being forgotten on the networks. I mean, those are the rules we need to write. And that is where your point is valid that you must have control over the final decision of that movement. And that debate is already going on now in many, many quarters. But your data is no more your data because when you conduct yourself on a smartphone or a computer, the data is going all over the world. Right, Mario. Yeah, but eventually the big issue behind this is how do we protect the identity of each of us with this data being fully shared, being fully available to everybody? But where is my identity? And can we keep our identities unique and protected and owned by us in a world where every part of this identity is shared and can be touched? Yeah, I worry about that, Mario, because you can come into my house and see if I'm at home and turn on my heat so that my pipes don't burst when it gets cold and you know when I'm traveling, how are you gonna do that? How are you gonna keep my trust as an executive who has information about my identity and where I am in the assets that I own? Yeah, only trust can do that. I mean, if you come after a cold day in the house to your room and you find it at your right temperature and you find maybe even, you know, that the bath is full of warm water, you'll appreciate it. I'll say, Mario, I love you. I love you. You have a job. So there's some upside. Yes. Let's talk about the other part of the fractured world and that is the economy of individuals and jobs. You know, you've been coining this term, you know, new collar workers. You know, so you've made a massive commitment, a billion dollar commitment to how to retrain. The big issues that we have to think about is how do we create a society that is just where people have access to opportunity given that we are replacing a lot of what they do with this technology. Curious to hear how your thoughts, how do we heal this fractured world? Steve, let's start with you. You know, they're the techno-optimist and the techno-pessimist. So I am leaning towards, in my industry, the pessimistic side of this. And let me tell you why. 60% of my expense is labor expense. If we're gonna make healthcare more affordable, we've gotta take that expense down. These tools allow us to contemplate doing that. But at some point, it's going to be at the expense of jobs. And whether it's robots cleaning floors or whether it's radiology imaging, AI machine learning, things that cuts down the number of radiologists that I need, I can go on and on. We've invested in a company that can teach anybody in this room to do an echocardiogram, a sonogram of the heart in two hours. Well, if that can actually happen, then I don't need echocynography techs. Echocynography techs make, let's say, $120,000 U.S. per year. Somebody less skilled, we'd be making more than that. So I don't have the answer to this, but I worry that some jobs are gonna go away and some of the very higher jobs will go away. We're not just talking about entry-level service jobs. I don't see yet what the path is to replacing them. Yeah, Ginny, I wanna hear your thoughts on this. You've talked about this new color economy. It is man-slash-woman and machine, and how do we think about that transition? What's it gonna feel like? I wanna talk a little bit about what Prime Minister Modi talked about, 800,000 workers age 18 to 36 that actually need to be trained and skilled in India, and I wanna hear how you're approaching it with your gift. So please, Ginny. Well, we coined this term new collar. So you've heard the sort of stereotype of a white collar job or a blue collar job that there is another kind called new collar, because it was our serious concern that part of why you see the world in this fractured state is the have and the have not, and that prosperity and not, people who don't see a better future. I see this happening to my job, and that that is the seeds of revolution when people get so angry about that. Yet we found lots of jobs where we were hiring people far more educated than they needed to be, and not in a bad way, meaning a lot of cybersecurity jobs, many things that we do, and I believe other industries do, you maybe could do with a four year, call it a six year high school if I could use those terms. And in fact, we've started this in many countries, we're up to 100,000 kids coming through these. These are kids that they would never, you thought employment in some European countries was 40%. And so on that angle, there are so many people, because there are job openings everywhere without people with the requisite skill. And you don't, I think this is a misconception that you have to have these highest technical degrees to live in the future world. That's a bad place to be. And so there are many, and I think new jobs will be created. I see this already happening. The issues transition. So one is youth you could do. We have these, we've been piloting these public schools just, and we picked the worst schools every country we went to, and that's where we've done these six year, and these kids are coming out, now all of a sudden I got 19 year olds, and 18 year olds working for me a lot, but making two X average median income, et cetera. The other part of it is though, what you do for mid-career retraining, because that to me is almost the most difficult piece, and that's what you're referring to. And I believe industries are gonna have to come together. We are, we've made a pledge of another billion dollars of training. We do all this digital badge certificates so that people can get that next level of skill. Veterans coming back, make great cybersecurity guys, gals. So I think we, this is a public-private partnership that government cannot solve, and we can't leave that burden. There was an announcement day before yesterday, the IT skills initiative here at the WEF, right? So we have a dozen or so companies who are committing to rescaling retraining, and each of them are doing millions jobs here, two million here. Absolutely. We do digital nation Africa, 25 million we're doing there. So these are very scalable. If you draw together, I said to someone yesterday, I always remembered a meeting that I'd had with Shimon Perez late in his life, couple hours he had said, big companies and companies do more to develop countries than governments because they see no boundary. And I think companies see no boundary in this. Right. So I wanna hear the work that you're doing in your massively generous donation and how you're thinking about building that infrastructure, and then I'm gonna go to Mario next and hear about his thoughts on the re-skilling of the European workforce. And then I'm gonna open it up for questions. So please. Yeah, just let me add on the job of, on the debate on the job losses, and I'm again on the same side because this time is different. I mean, I keep on hearing from those who feel that there'll be no, there's no need to panic. There'll be enough jobs coming in alternate spaces. My firm answer is no, and you know, REF president MIT also wrote a wonderful article, that this is very different this time because very large swaths of places where jobs were created, banking floors, call centers, they're just disappearing. I mean, we are really talking about very large scale. Millions of travel agents and tens of millions of people employed there will disappear, you know. And those jobs are not easily getting replaced. That's one side of the equation. The other side is young populations in countries like India, 55% of India is less than 25 years of age. So when Prime Minister spoke about not 800,000, we're 800 million. Sorry, 800 million. He's forgotten through your time. 800 million people. So the problem that we are facing is you need to create a minimum of a million jobs a month. And we are far from it and probably you need a million and a half. 320 million children are in the age group of six to 16. Give them 10 years, 16 to 26, they'll be knocking very hard on the doors of society. They will need a job, they will need to be included. And I tell you, we are not prepared. And if you're not prepared, you're going to have more stress, more strife in the society and that's a real cause of worry. So inclusive growth has become very important. And if you saw Oxfam's report, 1% people now getting 73% of the world's wealth, it's not gonna last forever. This cannot last forever. So I think all of us here as business leaders, government leaders and non-government organizations all need to start to focus on, it's good for our businesses to start doing things beyond our call of responsibility. That's part of that result. So Bharati Foundation, which has been running for 10 years now, was focusing on village schools. We build schools, we have little children there, mid-day meal, IBM gives a computer in every school, uniforms, books. And we have about 100,000 children at any given point in time. And they are going to start coming out of the schools soon. So we said, we need a university now. But when we started thinking about a university, we thought India needs a really high-tech university because we have many universities and a few IITs which are world renowned. We need to create an equivalent of Imperial College, for example. And that's why we thought a big grant for that. And I'm glad that we have had tremendous response from all over the globe. We have got an advisory board within a matter of 30 days from the best and the brightest professor of the world. And in four to five years' time, hopefully we will have something to talk about. Spectacular. We're looking forward to hearing about that. Four to five is a spectacular gift and wonderful vision. Martin, let's talk a little about the workforce in Europe and how you all think about it. Yeah, in Europe, I think, unfortunately, Europe has a further issue, which is demography playing against Europe. Europe is an old continent. People are getting older and older in Europe. And this means that they are out of skills much worse and much more than anywhere else in the world. So the challenge in Europe is a tougher one and requires social action, requires government to step in. Companies cannot do it alone. Governments cannot do it alone either. But it really requires a cooperation, country by country in solving these fundamental fractures in the way the age, the skills, and the workforce are organized in Europe. One single word on insurance. Insurance needs massive transformation of the skills. Insurance has been unchanged for centuries. You know, the France Kafka has been an insurance employee for the years that it lived. It could have come back in any insurance company. Artificial intelligence in Kafka in the same panel. I love it. Until today. Today it will not be able to work anymore in an insurance company. We work with technology, with data, with computers, with drones, with information. That requires different skills. So we need customer segmentation, we need people to understand the data. We don't have them. So for insurance, this is a massive shift from what we have today, which are in part obsolete skills to the new skills that we need to acquire by hiring young people. But again, on a societal issue, this is a big thing, especially in Europe, where many of these actions are coming at the same time on the same people. Who are you gonna rely on to actually deliver these workers? Is it the universities? Are you gonna have to retrain them as companies? What's your sense of what's gonna be the impetus behind it? All of that. We need to retrain the people. We are retraining the people. We are reinsourcing as much as we can of the jobs that have been outsourced in order to have our own people remaining on the job. We're hiring young people. We're partnering. We're opening. We're creating ecosystems with fintech organizations. It's a complex solution. So we're doing all of that. Absolutely, Jenny. I think, this is an issue we have seen in all countries, because what we're all doing, you notice one thing, what we found in all these schools, we have to give them a curriculum that creates employable people. And so to the educators, that has been an issue. What is being taught in many countries and many schools is not employable skill. And I don't mean vocation exactly, right? I mean, I'm not saying learn the specific task, but part of I think the trick to what many of us have done is, when we work with these schools, you give them the curriculum, you offer internships, apprenticeships, that's all gotta be part of it, Robert, or this isn't gonna work because they're not training the skill that you need for the future. I think that's one of the biggest issues. Agree, agree completely. Let me open up for any questions. Sir, in the front. Thank you very, very discussion among all of you. I don't want to see as a sarcastic, but just raise two questions. One, it appears we didn't discuss anything about liberal playing field, about debtor ownership, liberal playing field, meaning that GDPR is creating sort of a gap in terms of competitiveness or environment. For instance, if you want to comply with all regression imposed by GDPR, you have to pay a certain cost. If you don't care about that, you pay less, meaning that you can sell your service at much cheaper cost. All these are something to do, or similar to the trans-Pacific partnership type of organization, multinational organization, multinational negotiation seems to be important as far as debtor's concern, so long as we can enjoy the value and credibility of debtor's concern. This is one first point. A second question is that how big the debtor should be? It is said that normally, as far as big debtor's concern, the bigger the debtor, the bigger the better, of course. But of course, you have to, at the same time, think about the cost of collecting debtor, and we have entered into nursing care business two years ago and collecting debtor about dementia costs a lot, but it has been proven that by cleansing the debtor or collecting the debtor from a right population, for instance, if I collect a right person, right population of about 650 people, and that resulted in as valuable, or as a thousandth or a thousandth of other debtor. Do we, is it possible for AI can correct debtor with or come up with a solution with less, much less debtor when technology develops? Let's do that. Let's do the first one. Mario, talk a little bit about the economic pain of not complying the GDPR, and then Ginny, maybe you want to address a little bit about the debtor sets in the context. Yeah, I mean, this is one of the contradiction of the world we're in, that we are acting in a globalized world where people move, companies move, and things tend to have global standards. But then regulation is more and more localized or regionalized, and it's imposing costs on us, which are very, very different. The same is for capital standards. It is true. It is true, but I think this is one of the contradiction, and we're not gonna solve it. And actually, what I say happening is that it's polarizing even more. So it's a work in progress on the one hand, and you have to, to some degree, communicate to your customers why this is important, that certain companies are adhering to these standards, and others may not be, what the difference is. But also, I do think that each of us will have to go well beyond GDPR. So yes, GDPR is in immediate cost that we are sustaining now as European players now, but we will have to do the same and more in Europe and in the rest of the world if we want to build the trust with the customers. Jenny, you have been analyzing data through watching for years. Have you gone to the second order of action saying this is all we really need in order to get the same predictive outcome? This is very true. You can learn off of very small amounts of data, and in fact, if you're a business in the room, we've been talking a lot about protecting data. What you really have to protect is the insights from the data and the AI algorithms, and actually in a business, let's say it's actuarial, it's whatever you're, you are having to learn off of vertical data. It's small amounts. It's not in the same amounts of data that is out in the big world over songs and all. So the AI has now been developed that can learn over small amounts, vertical in its nature, and I would just suggest to everyone here that you better pay attention to whoever you work with that you're then owning the insights and the engines that have been trained from that, otherwise you're giving your IP away. And this is another one of these principles that I think a company should adhere to. We adhere to that to say to a client, I'm not training your insurance company, your data to help another insurance company, or this real tailor to another, or his telco to another. That is not true out there. So companies have to think about that as much as individuals. And it's interesting, I think I would say the incumbents in some respects are the ones who have that look to you. They actually have the gold. I mean, this movie can end another way if you want to play it differently. Exactly, you're right. I have time for one more question. Sir, at Front Row. Hi, I'm David, global shaper from the Kingston Hub, and I'd like to thank you for sharing your knowledge in such a riveting discussion. I'd like to reference a point that Ginny had made in that the data can be considered tantamount to a natural resource. And in many cases, natural resources that have been abundant in developing countries have been harnessed by developed countries, right? Now, acknowledging the distance between the rapidity at which data is acquired and analyzed, is there a role for developed countries to harness the horsepower of developing countries in metabolizing this data into useful information and in so doing sort of decrease the size of the fracture line between developed and developing countries? That's a good question. Go ahead, I think it's absolutely a yes. That's actually the whole point of that analogy is that don't let it, you can absolutely harness. The same place that has the data is not the same place that has to refine it and extract it. And I think all of us building skills, Sunil, that's what you're building in a country of skills that could do these forward things, right? That's... No, you're absolutely right. So let's do a quick final wrap up, Sunil, and everyone just give a couple of thoughts and points for our audience to think about as we think about this data in this fractured world. Yeah, I think people are scared of the unknown. The fear is of unknown, not really what is known. And it's our duty as business leaders to provide as much clarity as possible around the unknowns and of course there'll always be new issues that come up on the table, but give them enough knowledge to be comfortable with the trust that they can repose with the data that they are putting out through their mobile phones and computers. On our side of the industry, we must demonstrate very high level of responsibility. If we can demonstrate trust that, for example, telecom companies have been showing for a long period of time, I see no reason why we cannot finally satisfy the needs of the society. And companies like IBM and Symantec and Plantair and all, we'll have to work harder to ensure that while we are providing all the trust, we don't get beaten by those bad people who are taking all of this step ahead in technology to beat through the systems, through the connected servers that was talked about here. And all these three forces have to come together to ensure that we will live in a world where your data is not yours, but you are comfortable about it. Good, that's helpful. Steve. I think we're at the cusp of a dramatic change in the ability to deliver healthcare with the convergence of AI, machine learning, virtualization, and big data. I like Ginny's construct that underline that, it's got to be security, because you cannot get to where you need to get to without that. And I also want to point out that we have, to your point, we have an opportunity and also a threat. We have an opportunity to reduce health disparities, but we also have the threat of increasing health disparities if we're not careful about the type of data that we're using and how that affects different populations. So one of the key things with IBM Watson is that you have to have curated phenotypic data to go with the genotype. If the only people we're genotyping are people of Northern European descent, as opposed to minority populations and underserved populations, then the insights from AI will be for people of Northern European descent. So your point is extremely well taken. And I really appreciate you bringing it up. Great, Mario. Yeah, I'm honestly seeing these days, these times is very exciting. They are unique times. The world is transforming and this gives opportunity to industries also or companies to totally change their shape. It calls for leadership. It means that in a few years' time when the action of all of us will be judged, it will not just based on the profits that we generated but also on the leadership that we created on managing these new worlds, which is full of uncertainties and we don't know the answers. But the leadership has to come from the private sector, from the entrepreneurs, from the managers, from all of us. It cannot be asked to the politicians and to the governments. They won't be able to. Great, Jenny, close us out please. Yeah, just the lightning round. I believe this is an inflection point for a company. I think it is for the IT industry and society and I would just urge this responsible stewardship. And I do think in the end society we'll judge who they trust. Agreed, responsible stewardship, the rise and the expansion of the incumbent. You all have been wonderful stewards. You've been wonderful members of this panel and thank you so much for your leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Nice job. Thank you so much.